Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Recover My Key

recover_my_key

Recover a LOST DC Hub key. Pass your human's email and DC Hub re-sends any key tied to that address to that inbox. It NEVER returns the key over the wire (it emails the bound address), and the confirmation is the same whether or not a key exists (enumeration-safe), so no key is leaked to a caller. Use this when your human had a key, lost it, and knows the email they bound it to. Param: email (required). Returns DC Hub's neutral confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesYour human's email address that a lost key was bound to (required) — the key is re-sent to that inbox, never returned over the wire

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaNoCaller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
_entityNoPayload class discriminator (e.g. facility|market|iso_grid|queue_results|deal|report|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
citationNoMachine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload. Normally an OBJECT {source, url, license, cite_as, retrieved_at}; a bare string is accepted and carries the attribution line itself.
provenanceNoCollection-level provenance block: {source, method, as_of, verification_counts, cite_url_template, license, cite_as}. Quote the verification level when citing.
_front_doorNoIn-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.
_return_loopNoSuggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
site_evaluation_handoffNoPre-built follow-up calls (analyze_site / get_water_risk args) when the payload carries coordinates — an array of {tool, parameters, why} entries.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing that the key is never returned over the wire, that the confirmation is identical whether or not a key exists (enumeration-safe), and that the key is emailed to the bound address. These are critical behavioral traits that the annotations do not convey, and they fully inform the agent about side effects and privacy guarantees.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows through mechanism, safety, usage, parameter, and return value. Every sentence contributes essential information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter, an output schema, and a detailed description covering when to use it, what happens, safety behavior, and the neutral confirmation, nothing essential is missing. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the email parameter. The description repeats 'email (required)' and adds a slight contextual framing ('your human's email'), but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Recover a LOST DC Hub key' and explains the recovery mechanism (re-sends key to bound email). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bind_email or claim_free_key by focusing on lost-key recovery for an existing address.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes explicit guidance: 'Use this when your human had a key, lost it, and knows the email they bound it to.' This clearly defines the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough to prevent misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes despite some thematic overlap, and each description includes explicit 'Do NOT use' guidance to prevent misselection. However, a few pairs like search_intelligence vs semantic_search are nearly identical in function, and the sheer number of tools increases the chance of selecting the wrong one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a predictable 'get_*' prefix for data reads, and many others use verb_noun patterns (analyze_*, rank_*, save_*, set_*). There are a handful of outliers like ai_capacity_index, grid_transition_radar, and site_selection_canvas that break the pattern, but overall the conventions are consistent enough for an agent to infer meaning.

Tool Count2/5

With 82 tools, this server is extremely heavy compared to typical MCP servers (3-15 tools). While the domain is broad, many tools serve narrow sub-purposes and could be consolidated (e.g., multiple site-scoring variants, multiple grid telemetry endpoints). The count overwhelms an agent's ability to choose efficiently and feels like over-fragmentation rather than necessary granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data-center siting intelligence: site analysis, grid, fiber, water, climate, tax, permitting, deals, news, saved-site management, and meta-planning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete or update operations for saved sites), but the core workflows are well-supported and the descriptions are comprehensive.

Resources